Ex parte Martha Bradstreet In the Matter of Martha Bradstreet, Demandant
Decision Date | 01 January 1833 |
Citation | 7 Pet. 634,8 L.Ed. 810,32 U.S. 634 |
Parties | Ex parte MARTHA BRADSTREET: In the Matter of MARTHA BRADSTREET, Demandant |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
AT the January term of this court in 1832, on the motion of Mr. Jones, counsel for the demandant, the court granted 'a rule on the district judge of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, commanding him to be and appear before this court, either in person, or by an attorney of this court, on the first day of the next January term of this court, to wit, on the second Monday of January Anno Domini, 1833, to show cause, if any he have, why a mandamus should not be awarded to the said district judge of the northern district of New York commanding him:
1. To reinstate, and proceed to try and adjudge, according to the law and right of the case, the several writs of right and the mises thereon joined, lately pending in said court, and said to have been dismissed by order of said court, between Martha Bradstreet, demandant, and Apollos Cooper et al., tenants.
2. Requiring said court to admit such amendments in the form of pleading, or such evidence as may be necessary to aver or to ascertain the jurisdiction of said court, in the several suits aforesaid.
3. Or, if sufficient cause should be shown by the said judge on the return of this rule, or should otherwise appear to this court, against a writ of mandamus, requiring the matters and things aforesaid to be done by the said judge; then to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue from this court, requiring the said judge to direct and cause full records of the judgments or orders of dismissal in the several suits aforesaid, and of the processes of the same, to be duly made up and filed, so as to enable this court to re-examine and decide the grounds and merits of such judgments or orders, upon writs of error; such records showing upon the face of each, what judgments or final orders dismissing, or otherwise definitively disposing of, said suits, were rendered by the said district court; at whose instance, upon what grounds, and what exceptions or objections were reserved or taken by said demandant, or on her behalf, to the judgments or decisions of the said district court in the premises, or to the motions whereon such judgments or decisions were found; and what motion or motions, application or applications, were made to said court, by the demandant, or on her behalf, and either granted or overruled by said district court, both before and after said judgments or decisions dismissing or otherwise finally disposing of said suits; especially, what motions or applications were made by said demandant, or on her behalf, to said district court, to be admitted to amend her counts in the said suits, or to produce evidence to establish the value of the lands, &c., demanded in such counts, together with all the papers filed, and proceedings had in said suit respectively. (6 Pet. 774.)
The Honorable Alfred Conklin, judge of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, appeared before the court, by Mr. Beardsley, his counsel; and in pursuance of the rule, made the following statement as a return thereto.
To the supreme court of the United States: In answer to a rule granted by your honorable court, the certified copy whereof, hereunto annexed, was on the 21st of December instant served upon him, the undersigned begs leave respectfully to state, as follows:
1. That after the mises had been joined in the several causes mentioned in the rule, motions were made therein, on the part of the tenants, that the same should be dismissed, upon the ground that the counts respectively contained no allegation of the value of the matter in dispute; and that it did not therefore appear by the pleadings, that the causes were within the jurisdiction of the court. In conformity with what appeared to have been the uniform language of the national courts upon the question, and his own views of the law; and in accordance especially with several decisions in the circuit court for the third circuit (see 4 W. C. C. 482, 624), the undersigned granted these motions. Assuming that the causes were rightly dismissed, it follows, of course, that he ought not now to be required to reinstate them, unless leave ought also to be granted to the demandant to amend her counts.
2. After the dismissal of these causes, as above stated, motions were made therein, on the part of the demandant, that the same should be reinstated, and that she should be permitted to amend her counts. These motions the undersigned considered it to be his duty to deny; and he can, perhaps, in no other manner more properly show cause why he should not now be required to do what he then refused to do, than by here inserting a copy of the opinion which he delivered upon that occasion. This opinion is as follows:
'To this brief reference to English cases, I will only add, that so far as I have been able to discover, the records of English...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C.
... ... , when any final agency action in the matter would be directly reviewable only in the Court of ... of the Circuit Court's determinations); Ex Parte Bradstreet, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 634, 8 L.Ed. 810 ... ...
-
Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris
... ... subject-matter, and that thereafter no order shall be issued ... 203, 221, ... 21 L.Ed. 447; Ex parte McNeil, 13 Wall. 236, 20 L.Ed. 624; ... Cowley ... In Ex ... parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634, 644, 8 L.Ed. 810, the District ... ...
-
U.S. v. Christian
... ... involve subject matter to which our appellate jurisdiction could in some ... In Ex parte Bradstreet, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 634, 8 L.Ed. 810 ... ...
-
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass
... ... , disclosed that no investigation of any matter mentioned in the indictment had been 'begun' by ... Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634, 8 L.Ed. 810; Insurance ... ...